Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:34:09 -0600 From: "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@iteration.net> To: Mark Santcroos <marks@ripe.net> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, benno@freebsd.org Subject: Re: adding an address family Message-ID: <20010116233409.A9413@peorth.iteration.net> In-Reply-To: <20010116232326.A6513@ripe.net>; from marks@ripe.net on Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:23:26PM %2B0100 References: <20010116103212.C12906@ripe.net> <3A649154.B345C634@elischer.org> <20010116194307.A28087@ripe.net> <3A64B6C2.6D0ADF97@elischer.org> <20010116232326.A6513@ripe.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[cc'ed to Benno for his fun and entertainment] On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:23:26PM +0100, Mark Santcroos scribbled: | On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 01:01:54PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: | > > Is this likely going to replace all the implementations of the current | > > supported network protocols? | > > | > > In other words, is netgraph the right way to go for me, or should I rather | > > focus on the more static part and drop the idea of implementing it as a | > > kernel module? | > | Ok I'm trying to make a port of the IrDA stack on Linux to FreeBSD. | I've now written the driver for the chipset on my laptop, and I am ready | with that to pass data to an upper layer. Basically, we really do not want the Linux solution of doing IrDA. Using Netgraph would be much simpler. Email me and I will let you into my CVS repo of the IrDA ongoing work that Benno and I have done. Benno is working hard on FreeBSD/PPC kernel porting. I am doing the FreeBSD/PowerPC userland porting as well as I18N wchar* changes. Both of us are swamped, and the IrDA work has stagnated. I think we will gladly hand over the work. :) | In Linux IrDA is handled as AF_IRDA, so in userland you create an AF_IRDA | socket just as you would do with a normal TCP/IP stack and then you can | commnunicate with other IrDA devices. This "layering" scheme, is what Netgraph does. | I had two questions: | | 1. How can I dynamicly implement a new network protocol as a kernel | module. | The answer for that one seems to be Netgraph Netgraph ends all discussions. :) | Following to that one I had another question: | | 2. Is Netgraph going to be the future in FreeBSD network stacks. Iaw, will | tcp/ip be based on Netgraph in the future or will it just be a nice | extension but not more. Possibly, but why? TCP/IP can be very resource intensive. After all, we have systems designed to only do TCP/IP, servers. IrDA, at maximum performance, cannot be higher than ~4mbit/sec, compared to gigabit ethernet and ATM networks that FreeBSD supports. At such high levels of I/O and CPU time, we can afford to have TCP/IP services in the kernel. On the contrary, IrDA is ugly and should be organized by Netgraph. | The reason I ask it is this: Is it wise to implement my protocol based on | Netgraph (so I can do it as a kernel module), or should I just build it | into the kernel? Netgraph all the way. (/me pondering what Julian is thinking) IrDA is a bunch of messed up ugly protocols that can simply be different ng_* Netgraph nodes. | I know; A lot of questions, but I sure need the help :-) | (And wouldn't it be cool if we would have IrDA support?) Do you have the IrDA ISA driver? If so, for what chipset? Is yours the National Semiconductor Super IO chipsets? Can I see the IrDA ISA driver? :) -- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | keichii@peorth.iteration.net | keichii@bsdconspiracy.net | | http://peorth.iteration.net/~keichii | Yes, BSD is a conspiracy. | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010116233409.A9413>